29.06.2013 Views

CAD/CAM/CAE : electronic design automation, 1992 - Archive Server

CAD/CAM/CAE : electronic design automation, 1992 - Archive Server

CAD/CAM/CAE : electronic design automation, 1992 - Archive Server

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Design Process 3-5<br />

While there is a definite need for fault coverage, it is not free. There is<br />

a significant penalty in both cost and speed for increasing the testability<br />

of a <strong>design</strong>. To detemune how much <strong>electronic</strong> <strong>design</strong>ers are<br />

willing to pay for increased testability, Dataquest cross-correlated the<br />

targeted fault coverage a <strong>design</strong>er wishes to achieve, with the penalty<br />

he is willing to pay in both speed and density. Figure 3-18 shows the<br />

results of this analysis. In general, <strong>design</strong>ers recognize that they will<br />

have to pay an increasing penalty in speed and cost to achieve higher<br />

levels of testability. Particularly important, however, is the fact that the<br />

<strong>design</strong> engineer will more readily pay for an increased component<br />

cost than a slower system speed.<br />

Systems Integration and Verification<br />

The systems integration and verification portion of the <strong>design</strong> cycle<br />

consumes the same amount of time as the test development phase.<br />

According to users, there are few ways to approach this problem.<br />

Currently, there exists three methods of verifying the integrity of a<br />

system:<br />

• Simulation of critical parts<br />

• Full system simulation<br />

• Breadboarding<br />

Figures 3-19, 3-20, and 3-21 show the current and anticipated future<br />

usage of each type of verification technique. Clearly, users have a<br />

strong desire to move away from breadboarding and toward<br />

full system-level simulation. However, this must be tempered with<br />

the ability of the EDA vendors to supply a valid solution. The<br />

following factors may retard the implementation of full-system<br />

simulation:<br />

• Increased system complexity<br />

• Simulation capacity<br />

• Simulation speed<br />

• Model availability<br />

Dataquest believes that three years ago, user's response to planned<br />

usage of system verification would have been quite similar. The<br />

"Holy Grail" of full-system simulation continues to be sought after<br />

by the large majority of users, yet only a minority have been successful<br />

in obtaining the goal. Dataquest anticipates that breadhoarding<br />

will continue to play an active role in system verification,<br />

and new advanced breadboarding capabilities using programmable<br />

technology will fuel the longevity of breadboarding.<br />

Prototype Debugging<br />

Prototj^e debugging consumes approximately 17 percent of the system<br />

<strong>design</strong> cycle worldwide. During this phase of the <strong>design</strong> process,<br />

two type of errors may be imcovered in the system: timing violations<br />

and functional violations. To gauge which type of <strong>design</strong> error was<br />

more problematic, Dataquest asked <strong>electronic</strong> <strong>design</strong>ers which type of<br />

<strong>design</strong>er error consumed more time after the prototj^e was received.<br />

C<strong>CAM</strong>-EDA-UW-9201 ©<strong>1992</strong> Dataquest Incorporated November 30, <strong>1992</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!